Constitutional Law – Admission Regulations – Rule 12(8)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 – Appellant challenged the rule prohibiting the inclusion of vacant seats from mop-up round in college level counseling – Supreme Court declared Rule 12(8)(a) as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Found that the rule imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to admit students, protected under Article 19(1)(g) – Emphasized that the measure was disproportionate, resulting in financial loss to institutions and wastage of resources – Held that public interest is not served by keeping seats vacant, thus the rule lacked rational connection with its objective [Paras 1-26].

Educational Institutions – Right to Admit Students – Management’s right to occupation includes right to admit students – Supreme Court reiterated that regulations should ensure transparency and merit-based admissions without imposing unreasonable restrictions – Upgradation and selection of subjects relevant to postgraduate courses, not undergraduate – Keeping seats vacant not a viable solution – Interest of general public better served by filling all seats [Paras 12-25].

Judicial Review – Proportionality – Subordinate legislation can be challenged on grounds of proportionality – Rule 12(8)(a) fails proportionality test – No rational connection between the restriction and the objective of preventing manipulation in admissions – Excessive restriction deemed unconstitutional [Paras 15-21].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Rule 12(8)(a) struck down as unconstitutional – High Court judgment set aside – Directed the State to initiate process of filling up vacant seats through college level counseling [Para 26].

Housing Law – Allotment Procedure – Registration and Allotment – Respondent’s grandfather registered for a plot under a housing scheme – No allotment was made to him by draw of lots – Grandfather's registration ceased under Government Order dated 11.10.2002, which stipulated that unsuccessful old registrations would not be renewed – Respondent requested transfer and allotment of the plot based on grandfather’s registration – High Court directed allotment of a plot to the respondent – Supreme Court held that mere availability of plots does not entitle the respondent to allotment without participating in prescribed procedure – Allotment to respondent would deprive other eligible applicants – High Court's direction for allotment set aside [Paras 1-20].

Registration and Eligibility – Grandfather's registration did not guarantee allotment – Respondent failed to participate in subsequent allotment processes as required – Government Order nullified old registrations and offered refund instead – Respondent repeatedly informed of invalid registration and option for refund – No allotment right existed for respondent based on expired registration [Paras 10-19].

Administrative Orders – Authority and Misinterpretation – Alleged order by Housing Commissioner under Rule 47 for plot allotment to respondent was found to be a mere recommendation, not a binding order – Respondent’s claim based on misinterpretation rejected – Actual administrative procedures emphasized over individual claims [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order directing plot allotment to respondent set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Allotments to follow prescribed procedures ensuring fairness to all applicants [Para 20].

Insolvency Law – Financial Creditor Status – Appellant claimed to be a financial creditor under IBC based on a pledge agreement and deed of undertaking – Pledge of shares does not amount to a guarantee or financial debt – Definition of "financial creditor" requires disbursement against the consideration for the time value of money – Supreme Court held that the pledge agreement did not constitute a financial debt – Corporate debtor had not undertaken to discharge the liability of the borrower, thus appellant is not a financial creditor [Paras 1-32].

Pledge vs. Guarantee – Contractual Interpretation – Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract of guarantee involves a promise to discharge the liability of a third person in case of default – The Pledge Agreement was only for pledging shares as security and did not involve such a promise – Pledge does not equal a guarantee, and thus, does not fulfill the criteria for being a financial debt under IBC [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Previous Judgments – The Court referred to and distinguished previous judgments, including Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited and others – Confirmed that security interest alone does not confer financial creditor status – Emphasized the need for direct involvement in the functioning and financial restructuring of the corporate debtor for financial creditor recognition [Paras 29-31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Appellant does not qualify as a financial creditor under Sections 5(7) and 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Observations limited to this determination without prejudice to other legal proceedings by the appellant [Para 32].

Corruption Law – Illegal Gratification – Acquittal – Appeal – High Court acquitted respondent without detailed reappreciation of evidence – Supreme Court held that High Court must reappreciate entire evidence independently in appeals against convictions – High Court's approach found to be erroneous and patently illegal leading to miscarriage of justice – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration [Paras 1-8].

Appellate Review – Reappreciation of Evidence – High Court must independently reappreciate evidence in first appeals against convictions – Double presumption of innocence applicable in acquittal cases – No such presumption in conviction appeals – High Court must consider detailed evidence and reasoning of trial court in conviction appeals [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law and on merits – No opinion expressed on merits [Para 8].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Bail – Constitutional Courts' Authority – Respondent accused of serious offenses under UAPA – High Court granted bail citing long period of incarceration and unlikelihood of trial completion soon – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s order, noting that constitutional courts can grant bail if trial is excessively delayed, regardless of statutory restrictions under UAPA [Paras 1-21].

Constitutional Right – Speedy Trial – The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 – Extended incarceration without trial completion violates constitutional rights – Bail can be granted when the period of incarceration already exceeds a substantial part of the likely sentence [Paras 12-18].

Precedents – Similar Bail Decisions – References made to past cases where bail was granted under special legislations like TADA, NDPS, and UAPA due to long incarceration and delayed trials – Emphasized balance between legislative policy and constitutional rights [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Bail granted by High Court upheld – Additional conditions imposed for bail – Respondent to mark presence weekly at local police station and refrain from activities that could enrage communal sentiments [Para 21].

Insolvency Law – Financial Creditors – Related Parties – Interpretation – Section 21(2) IBC mandates that the CoC shall comprise all financial creditors of the corporate debtor – First proviso to Section 21(2) excludes related party financial creditors from CoC – Supreme Court held exclusion applies not only to present related parties but also to those who were related parties at the time of acquiring the debt if the relationship was terminated to circumvent exclusion – Such interpretation prevents manipulation and ensures fairness in CIRP [Paras 1-40].

Committee of Creditors – Constitution and Composition – Financial creditors who are related parties at the time of acquiring debt or subsequently are excluded from CoC – NCLAT held Spade and AAA, companies with ties to the corporate debtor, are related parties and thus ineligible for CoC participation – Supreme Court upheld this exclusion [Paras 41-64].

Judicial Review – Commercial Decisions – Courts must ensure commercial transactions and relationships are scrutinized to avoid conflicts of interest – NCLT and NCLAT found Spade and AAA had deep entanglement with the corporate debtor – Supreme Court supported the findings of collusive transactions lacking genuine commercial basis [Paras 50-52].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – NCLAT’s exclusion of Spade and AAA from CoC confirmed – Both companies not deemed financial creditors due to their related party status – Ensures integrity and impartiality in the insolvency process [Paras 63-64].

Tender Process – Judicial Review – Appeal challenging the High Court's decision to allow the writ petition against the rejection of a bid – Supreme Court emphasizes the principles of judicial restraint in administrative actions, especially in foreign-funded projects – Upholds the rejection of Montecarlo Limited's bid by the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL), confirming the bid was non-responsive due to material deviations – Reiterates that courts should not interfere in the technical evaluation of bids unless there is evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or favouritism [Paras 1-88].

Foreign-Funded Projects – Special Considerations – Highlights the unique nature of foreign-funded mega projects – Emphasizes the adherence to the terms and conditions set by the funding agency, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) – Clarifies that deviations from these terms are not permissible due to the international implications and contractual obligations involved [Paras 6.3-6.11, 7.1-7.4].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – NHSRCL's decision to reject Montecarlo Limited's bid upheld – Emphasizes minimal judicial interference in tender processes, especially those involving international funding and detailed contractual frameworks.

Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning Order – Discretionary Power – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence exists against the person from the evidence before the court. It is not to be exercised merely because the judge believes someone else may be guilty. The High Court erred in not considering the correctness of the summoning order, focusing instead on subsequent procedural developments [Paras 1-13].

Subsequent Proceedings – Impact on Original Order – Subsequent proceedings (like issuing notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C.) do not shield an earlier summoning order from judicial review. If the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is found invalid, all subsequent proceedings based on that order will automatically cease [Paras 11-14].

Juvenility – Consideration Required – The appellant’s claim of juvenility at the time of the incident (DOB: 01.04.2000) must be considered by the High Court during the fresh revision hearing [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 27.09.2019 set aside – High Court directed to reconsider the criminal revision afresh in accordance with law [Para 16].

Appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers – Time-Barred Challenges – Under Section 53 of the Uttar Pradesh Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University Act, 2002, any challenge to the appointment must be made within three months. The respondent's challenge to the appellant’s appointment as Assistant Professor, made after more than three years, was time-barred and not maintainable. The High Court erred in entertaining the challenge [Paras 1-16].

Reference to Chancellor – Finality and Timeliness – Section 53 stipulates that any question regarding appointments must be referred to the Chancellor within three months, and the Chancellor's decision is final. The respondent’s delayed representation to the Chancellor, focusing on seniority rather than the initial appointment, was rightly rejected. The High Court’s intervention in quashing the Chancellor’s order was misplaced [Paras 10-15, 26-27].

Seniority Claims – Inappropriate Forum – The respondent's primary claim was seniority over the appellant, which should have been pursued through proper channels within the University and not as a belated challenge to the appellant’s appointment. The High Court’s decision to entertain this challenge was flawed [Paras 17-25].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 12.04.2018 set aside – Writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 dismissed [Paras 28].